Relationships - content

Relationships - content

1. Evolutionary explanations for partner preferences

   • Darwins Sexual selection
     • Intrasexual selection
     • Intersexual selection
   • The Buss study 1989

2. Further explanations for partner preferences

   • Pawloski and Dunbar (1999, 2001) - content analysis of adverts in dating columns
   • Male partner preferences
     • Cunningham (1986) - types of female faces men find attractive
     • Perrett and Penton-Voak (1997-99)- alteration of human faces to look more attractive
   • Female partner preferences
     • Buss study (1989) - qualities women valued in potential partners
     • Perrett and Rowland (1996)- masculine faces less attractive
   • Trivers (1972) Parent investment theory
   • Parental certianty and sexual jealousy
     • Buss and Schmitt (1993) - gender differences in distress at partners unfaithfulness
       • Geary et al (1995) - Cross cultural studies have supported patterns shown from Sweden to China
   • Differences in choosing sexual partners
     • Clark and Hatfield (1989 and 1990) - women less likely to have sex with a stranger

3. Physical attractiveness

   • Buss (1989) - importance of physical attractiveness to men
   • Eastwick et al (2011) - physical attractiveness is just as important for women as it is for men
   • The matching hypothesis
     • Walster and Walster (1969) - individuals look for a partner with equal social desirability
     • Walster (1966) - 'Computer dance' to test the matching hypothesis
     • Murstien (1972) - pictures of couples more likely to be voted as more alike in attractiveness
     • Silverman (1971) - couples in bars matched in attractiveness
       • McKillip and Reidel (1983) - pairs of friends closely matched in attractiveness

4. Self-Disclosure

   • First used by Sidney Jourard (1971)
   • Collins and Miller (1994) - people tend to reveal more intimate info to those they like, and like those who they have revelaed intimate info to.
   • Sprecher et al (2013) - amount of self-disclosure predicts length of relationships
     • Completed seperare study focusing on whether reciprocal self-disclosure was more influential than one sided self-disclosure
   • Berg and Archer (1980) - people possess a norm of reciprocity concerning self-disclosure
   • Derlega and Grzelak (1979) - fine line between revealing too much/too little in the early stages of a relationship

5. Filter theory

   • Kerckhoff and Davis (1962)- investigated how relationships progress towards permanance
     • Found a difference between long and short term relations
   • Narrowing down the field of avaliables

6. Social exchange theory

   • Kurdek and Schmitt (1986)- investigated importsnce of social exchange factors in determining couples
     • Found that the factors that predict satisfaction in same-sex relationships are the same as heterosexual relationships
   • Thibaut and Kelley (1959)- profit and loss- assume all behaviour is a series of exchanges, individuals attempting to maximise their rewards and minimise their costs
   • Thiabaut and Kelley (1959)- Comparison level- we develop a standard against which all our relationships are judged
   • Comparison level alternative- individual weighs up a potential increase in rewards from a different partner, minus any costs associated with ending the current relationship

7. Equity theory

   • Partners benefits minus costs = their partners benefits minus their costs - makes an equitable relationship
     • Over-benefitted
     • Under-benefitted
   • Schafer and Keith (1980)- surveyed married couples, found inequity was due to unfair domestic division of labour
   • Hatfield and Rapson (2011)- couples concern with equity depended on the stage of relationship
   • Byers and Wang (2004)- couples in equitable relationships are less likely to risk affairs
   • Hatfield and Rapson (2011)- 3 ways to deal with equity
     • Restoration of actual equity
     • Restoration of psychology equity
     • If equity cannot be restored, then they can just leave
   • Stafford and Canary (2006)- measured equity in 200 married couples

8. The investmet model of relationships

   • Rusbult- relationships persist due to investment and lack of alternatives
     • Includes satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, investment size and commitment level
   • Le and Agnew (2003)- meta study of the components of the investment model, studied correlation between them

9. Relationship breakdown

   • Duck's model of relationship breakdown
     • 1- breakdown
     • 2- intrapsychic phase
     • 3- dyadic phase
     • 4- social phase
     • 5- grave dressing phase

10. Virtual relationships

    • Higher self disclosure due to anonymity
      • Jourard (1971) - 'broadcasting self-disclosure'
    • Rubin (1975)- 'strangers on a train'
    • Absence of gating
      • Zhao et al (2008)- social networks can empower 'gated' individuals to disclose online
      • Yurchisin et al (2005)- online daters liekly to 'stretch the truth' to display a better version of themselves

11. Parasocial relationships

    • One sided relationships formed with an unaware influencer
    • Can be measured using questionnaires and scales
      • McCutcheon (2002-2006)- Celebrity attitude scale
        • Entertainment social
        • Intense personal
        • Borderline pathological
        • Tengco-Pacquiring et al (2013)- Filipinos more obsessed with celebrity culture than their North American counterparts
    • Cole and Leets (1999)- willingness to form PSR links to attachment style
      • Kienlen (1998)- adults with insecure attachment styles more likely to form PSR
    • Absorbtion addiction model
      • Ashe and McCutcheon (2001)- in PSRs there is no change of criticism or rejection- appealing
      • McCutcheon et al (2002)- most never go beyond admiring influencers
    • Lange et al (2002)- Absorbtion to addiction
      • Maltby et al- individuals who reached the first level of influencer worship had some degree of social dysfunction
    • Rebecca Schaeffer